On 10/24/2026 10:56 AM, David Marchand wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 at 16:48, Burakov, Anatoly
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/23/2026 4:41 PM, David Marchand wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 at 15:52, Anatoly Burakov <[email protected]> wrote:
diff --git a/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c b/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c
index aadb7b84a22..f6f51ba53c0 100644
--- a/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c
+++ b/lib/eal/linux/eal_interrupts.c
@@ -1667,6 +1667,8 @@ rte_intr_efd_disable(struct rte_intr_handle *intr_handle)
for (i = 0; i < (uint32_t)rte_intr_nb_efd_get(intr_handle);
i++)
close(rte_intr_efds_index_get(intr_handle, i));
}
+ for (i = 0; i < (uint32_t)rte_intr_nb_efd_get(intr_handle); i++)
+ rte_intr_efds_index_set(intr_handle, i, -1);
We don't want to waive for types != VFIO_MSIX, do we?
Looking into this further, I suspectwe want to check for != VDEV
instead. All handle types except VDEV will write into the handle.
Indeed, I had misunderstood rte_intr_efd_enable...
Ok, I'll respin those patches as part of my series and let the whole
set of changes go through CI.
Yes, the efd name is confusing because not all handles created by our
interrupt subsystem are efd
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
